You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under
chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 137628.

The Town of Fairview (the "town") received a written request for thirteen categories of
information pertaining to the town's budget, town council actions, an internet web site
concerning the McKinney Municipal Airport, and the rental of signs and billboards. You
state that the town will make available to the requestor records responsive to items 1 - 5.(1) You contend that the remaining requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.103 of the Government Code.

We begin by outlining the specific information at issue that the town seeks to withhold. The
items are as follows:

A copy of any check, purchase order, draft, or voucher representing
payment by the town or to any employee or public official reimbursed
by the town for rental of any sign or billboard.

A copy of any check, purchase order, draft, or voucher representing
payment by the town for expenses incurred in creating or maintaining
any internet website.

A copy of any check, purchase order, draft, or voucher representing
payment by the town for expenses incurred in any mailing either
within or without the town limits.

Contracts for a) web page server services, and b) web page design.

Copies of documentation of contributions of town services or funds
to create the website.

Copies of all drafts of the web page in process, including edits, and
revisions.

Copies of all written or electronic materials used to develop the
website.

Copies of all documents received by the town as a part of any bid
received in connection with the purchase or rental by the town of a
billboard regarding the McKinney Municipal Airport.

We note at the outset that much of the information you seek to withhold is specifically made
public information under section 552.022 of the Government Code. Section 552.022(a)
provides in pertinent part:

Without limiting the amount or kind of information that is public information
under this chapter, the following categories of information are public
information and not excepted from required disclosure under this chapter
unless they are expressly confidential under other law:

. . . .

(3) information in an account, voucher, or contract
relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds
by a governmental body.

. . . .

(16) information that is in a bill for attorney's fees and that
is not privileged under the attorney-client privilege.

Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(3), (16) (emphasis added). After reviewing the information at
issue, we conclude that the town must release pursuant to section 552.002(a) all records
responsive to items 6, 7,(2) 8, 9, 10 and 13. None of these records may be withheld under the exceptions you have raised.

We now address whether the documents responsive to items 11 and 12 are excepted from
public disclosure under section 552.103. The test for establishing that section 552.103(a),
the "litigation exception," applies to requested information is a two-prong showing that (1)
the governmental body is a party to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, and (2) the
information at issue is related to that litigation. University of Texas Law Sch. v. Texas Legal
Found., 958 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. App.--Austin, 1997), Heard v. Houston Post Co., 684 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Additionally, the governmental
body must demonstrate that the litigation was pending or reasonably anticipated at the time
the request for the information was received. Gov't Code § 552.103(c). The mere chance
of litigation will not trigger section 552.103(a). Open Records Decision No. 452 at 4 (1986).
To demonstrate that litigation is reasonably anticipated, the governmental body must furnish
concrete evidence that litigation involving a specific matter is realistically contemplated and
is more than mere conjecture. Id.

You have not demonstrated that litigation in which the town would be a party is reasonably
anticipated in this instance. In fact, you inform this office that the town "currently has no
plans to initiate litigation" relating to any of the records at issue. Nor have you provided
evidence to this office that the town anticipates becoming a defendant in any related legal
action. We conclude, therefore, that the town may not withhold any of the information at
issue pursuant to section 552.103.(3)

Finally, you contend that information revealing the identities of individuals who made
contributions for the billboards and web site is protected from public disclosure pursuant to
section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with the common law right of
privacy. In Open Records Decision No. 590 (1991), this office addressed whether
information revealing the identities of donors and the amount of the donations to West Texas
State University was confidential under section 552.101. This office determined that

Under Texas common law, a disclosure of information constitutes an
invasion of privacy if it meets two conditions: (1) the information contains
highly intimate or embarrassing facts about a person's private affairs, the
publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person,
and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Industrial
Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668
(Tex.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977); Open Records Decision No.
545 (1990). A pledge or donation of property to the university is a financial
transaction between the donor or pledgor and a public body. As such, it does
not involve facts about an individual's private affairs. It is, moreover, a
matter of legitimate public concern, as the public has an interest in knowing
who funds and therefore potentially influences public entities. This concern
extends to the amount of the donation as well as the identity of the donor. . . .
Thus, we do not find that common-law privacy bars the disclosure of the
requested material.

ORD 590 at 3 (1991). The rationale in Open Records Decision No. 590 resolves this aspect
of your request. Because the requested donor information is not protected by common law
privacy, the town must release this information.

To summarize, the town must release all of the requested information. None of the
information at issue comes under the protection of any of the exceptions you have raised.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full
benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id.
§ 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the
governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general
have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling.
Id. § 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records;
2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be
provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental
body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one
of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report
that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839.
The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney.
Id. § 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.

1. You state, however, that the town "does not waive any privileges or exceptions which may be applied once the Attorney General decides on applicable exceptions." Records that a governmental body voluntarily releases to one member of the public are generally deemed to be available to any other member of the public. See Gov't Code § 552.007

2. Although you indicate that portions of the attorney billing statements responsive to item 7 come within the attorney-client privilege, you have redacted those portions of the bills that you submitted to this office. Consequently, it is impossible for this office to determine the extent to which the attorney fee bills are protected by the attorney-client privilege. We therefore have no basis on which to conclude that the information you have redacted is excepted from public disclosure under section 552.022(a)(16).

3. You have brought to our attention this office's decision in Open Records Letter No. 98-2589 (1998) that the City of McKinney could withhold pursuant to section 552.103 certain information requested by the town based on the city's demonstration that the town had taken concrete steps towards litigation against the city. That decision by this office was based on information before us at that time, and does not affect the town's burden to otherwise demonstrate the applicability of section 552.103 in this instance.